ALABAMA: Judge Set To Rule On 1995 DOT Race Discrimination Case---------------------------------------------------------------Hearings began before U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompsonto determine if the state Department of Transportation hascomplied with a 1995 agreement to end a long-term racialdiscrimination lawsuit, the Decatur Daily reports.

Before that hearing, Judge Thompson had ruled that the DOT wasin compliance with Article 16 of a 1995 settlement agreement inReynolds v. Alabama Department of Transportation. The rulingaddresses training needs for black employees at DOT who areinterested in job changes or promotion and also outlinesrequirements needed to help black employees compete for jobs andpromotions, which the DOT now believes, it is in compliance.

The case had developed from a lawsuit by Johnny Reynolds, ablack DOT employee, who believed his race hurt his chances forpromotion at the department. Others blacks later joined the suitand thus it became a class-action case.

Through the end of the 2003-04 fiscal year in September, thestate had paid $174 million in expenses and fines on the 19-year-old case. Fines alone for not being in compliance in the1995 consent decree cost the state $63,000 per week.

In the hearing, Russell Adams, attorney for Mr. Reynolds andother black employees and potential employees, argued howeverthat the DOT has not completed those steps. More than 15provisions of the 1995 settlement agreement are under discussionin the hearing expected to continue through Thursday with somearticles of the consent decree expiring on December 31 whileothers will continue beyond that time. Judge Thompson hadcalled the hearing to help settle questions both sides haveabout issues in articles that will expire at the end of themonth.

According to the complaint, historically when companies aretaken private, shareholders receive a substantial premium tomarket price. The complaint further states the proposed sale toPenn Gaming Co. is unfair because the gains will not be equallyshared with Argosy's public shareholders.

A transaction of all outstanding Argosy shares at $47 per sharewould have an aggregate value of $2.2 billion, including $805million of debt.

Lemon Bay also claims the consideration of $47 to be paid toclass members is unfair and inadequate as the intrinsic value ofthe Company's stock is materially in excess of $47 per shareoffered by Penn, considering "the Company's prospects for growthand profitability in light of its business, earning power,present and future," according to the suit. Furthermore, LemonBay also alleges that financial advisor Morgan Stanley, whichstood to gain millions of dollars from Penn's acquisition ofArgosy, did not give impartial advice on Argosy's value and thatindividuals who were primarily involved in negotiations withPenn stand to gain additional cash payments upon theconsummation of the sale of Argosy to Penn.

Under the terms of the sale agreement, unvested options held byall directors of Argosy will be accelerated so that they will befully vested immediately prior to the effective time andconsequently converted into the right to receive cash. While theindividual defendants have not disclosed the amount they willreceive as a result from unvested stock options, they havedisclosed the amount they will receive from all stock options asfollows:

(1) William F. Cellini, $101,275

(2) Richard J. Glasier, $5,803,327

(3) Edward F. Brennan, $64,255

(4) George L. Bristol, $64,255

(5) F. Lance Callis, $101,275

(6) Jimmy F. Gallagher, $101,275

(7) James B. Perry, $46,250

(8) John B. Pratt, Sr., $101,275

(9) Michael W. Scott, $67,480

Lemon Bay also alleges that Mr. Glasier, who also wasprincipally involved in negotiations, will receive compensationof $10,000 per month as a result of a consulting agreement withPenn and that Mr. Cellini has also negotiated to be named toPenn's board of directors.

"By causing Argosy to enter into the sale agreement with Pennbecause of the personal benefits they will receive, theindividual defendants have deprived plaintiff and the class ofthe opportunity to realize the higher price other buyers mightbe willing to pay for Argosy shares, or the value that theirshares would have if the Company remains independent" thecomplaint states.

Lemon Bay claims the defendants failed to make an informeddecision, as no market check of Argosy's value was obtained. "Inagreeing to the sale agreement, the individual defendants failedto properly inform themselves of Argosy's highest transactionalvalue and failed to do so because of their hurry to sign thesale agreement and thereby obtain the personal benefits theywill receive thereunder," the complaint states.

The defendants violated the fiduciary duties they owe to theshareholders of Argosy, and their agreement to the terms of thesale agreement demonstrate a clear absence of the exercise ofdue care and of loyalty to Argosy's public shareholders, thesuit claims.

BEXTRA: FDA Places New Boxed Warnings on Side Effects on Label--------------------------------------------------------------Important new information on side effects associated with theuse of Bextra, a COX-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatorydrug (NSAID) which is indicated for the treatment ofosteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and dysmenorrhea (menstrualpain) is being placed on a "boxed" warning on the product label,strengthening previous warnings about the risk of life-threatening skin reactions and a new bolded warningcontraindicating the use of Bextra in patients undergoingcoronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery will be added to thelabel, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in astatement.

In addition, the FDA will also seek input from the public andfrom outside experts on the appropriate uses for Bextra andother NSAIDs at a previously-announced Advisory Committeemeeting, to be held early in 2005.

Boxed and bolded warnings provide healthcare professionals andpatients with important information on drugs that may beassociated with serious side effects in a way that maximizes thedrug's benefits and minimizes its risks.

The new boxed warning in the label states that patients takingBextra have reported serious, potentially fatal skin reactions,including Steven-Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermalnecrolysis. These skin reactions are most likely to occur inthe first 2 weeks of treatment, but can occur any time duringtherapy. In a few cases, these reactions have resulted indeath.

The labeling advises doctors that Bextra should be discontinuedat the first appearance of a skin rash, mucosal lesions (such assores on the inside of the mouth), or any other sign of allergicreactions. The new boxed warning also states that Bextracontains sulfa, and patients with a history of allergicreactions to sulfa may be at a greater risk of skin reactions.

As of November 2004, FDA had received reports of a total of 87cases in the United States of severe skin reactions inassociation with Bextra, including Stevens-Johnson Syndrome andtoxic epidermal necrolysis. Twenty of the 87 cases involvedpatients with a known allergy to sulfa. Of these 87 cases, 36hospitalizations were reported, including 4 deaths. Other Cox-2selective inhibitors and traditional NSAIDs such as naproxen andibuprofen also have a risk for these rare, serious skinreactions, but the reported rate of these serious side effectsappears to be greater for Bextra than for other COX-2 agents.

Pfizer submitted the final report of the new CABG study to FDAon November 5, 2004. The report confirms the risk of theintravenous form (about 2 percent of patients had such anadverse event) and also shows that oral Bextra is associatedwith a lower, but some, risk (about 1 percent of patients)immediately following CABG surgery--a very specific medicalsetting. In the placebo group, about 0.5 percent of patients hadan adverse cardiovascular event. Bextra is not approved for usein the treatment of postoperative pain of any type; however, FDAbelieves that these new findings should be made available tohealthcare professionals and patients, and the bolded warningspecifically contraindicates Bextra for treatment of painimmediately following CABG.

FDA urges health care providers and patients to report adverseevent information to FDA via the MedWatch program by phone(1-800-FDA-1088), by fax (1-800-FDA-0178), or by the Internethttp://www.fda.gov/medwatch/index.html. Reports can also be made directly to Pfizer, Inc., Peapack, N.J. at 1-800-323-4204.

BUSINESS OBJECTS: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suits in N.D. CA----------------------------------------------------------------Business Objects, S.A. and certain of its officers and directorsface four securities class actions filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of California.

Between June 2 and July 1, 2004, four purported class actioncomplaints were filed in the United States District Courts forthe Northern District of California, the Southern District ofCalifornia, and the Southern District of New York. Thecomplaints allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Theplaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of investors inthe Company's American depositary receipts (ADRs) who purchasedthe ADRs between April23, 2003 and May5, 2004.

The complaints generally allege that, during that Class Period,the Company and the individual defendants made false ormisleading statements in press releases and SEC filingsregarding, among other things, the Company's acquisition ofCrystal Decisions, its Enterprise 6 product and the Company'sforecasts and financial results for the three months ended March31, 2004.

CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses Summary Judgment in Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia denied Calpine Corporation's motion for summaryjudgment in the consolidated securities class action filedagainst it and certain of its officers.

The eleven other actions were filed between March 18, 2002 andApril 23, 2002. The complaints in these 11 actions arevirtually identical - they are filed by three law firms, inconjunction with other law firms as co-counsel. All 11 lawsuitsare purported class actions on behalf of purchasers of Calpine'ssecurities between January 5, 2001 and December 13, 2001. Thesuits are styled:

(1) Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Calpine Corp.,

(2) Lukowski v. Calpine Corp.,

(3) Hart v. Calpine Corp.,

(4) Atchison v. Calpine Corp.,

(5) Laborers Local 1298 v. Calpine Corp.,

(6) Bell v. Calpine Corp.,

(7) Nowicki v. Calpine Corp.

(8) Pallotta v. Calpine Corp.,

(9) Knepell v. Calpine Corp.,

(10) Staub v. Calpine Corp., and

(11) Rose v. Calpine Corp.

The complaints in these 14 actions allege that, during thepurported class periods, certain Calpine executives issued falseand misleading statements about Calpine's financial condition inviolation of Sections 10(b) and 20(1) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5. These actions seek anunspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms ofrelief.

In addition, a fifteenth securities class action, Ser v.Calpine, et al., was filed on May 13, 2002, (the "Ser action").The underlying allegations in the Ser action are substantiallythe same as those in the above-referenced actions. However, theSer action is brought on behalf of a purported class ofpurchasers of Calpine's 8.5% Senior Notes Due February 15, 2011and the alleged class period is October 15, 2001 throughDecember 13, 2001. The Ser complaint alleges that, in violationof Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended(the "Securities Act"), the Supplemental Prospectus for the 2011Notes contained false and misleading statements regardingCalpine's financial condition. This action names Calpine,certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters ofthe 2011 Notes offering as defendants, and seeks an unspecifiedamount of damages, in addition to other forms of relief.

All 15 of these securities class action lawsuits wereconsolidated in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California. Plaintiffs filed a firstamended complaint in October 2002. The amended complaint did notinclude the Securities Act complaints raised in the bondholders'complaint, and the number of defendants named was reduced. OnJanuary 16, 2003, before the Company's response was due to thisamended complaint, plaintiffs filed a further second complaint.

This second amended complaint added three additional Calpineexecutives and Arthur Andersen LLP as defendants. The secondamended complaint set forth additional alleged violations ofSection 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating toallegedly false and misleading statements made regardingCalpine's role in the California energy crisis, the long termpower contracts with the California Department of WaterResources, and Calpine's dealings with Enron, and additionalclaims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Actrelating to statements regarding the causes of the Californiaenergy crisis. The Company filed a motion to dismiss thisconsolidated action in early April 2003.

On August 29, 2003, the judge issued an order dismissing, withleave to amend, all of the allegations set forth in the secondamended complaint except for a claim under Section 11 of theSecurities Act relating to statements relating to the causes ofthe California energy crisis and the related increase inwholesale prices contained in the Supplemental Prospectuses forthe 2011 Notes. The judge instructed plaintiff, Julies Ser, tofile a third amended complaint, which he did on October 17,2003. The third amended complaint names Calpine and threeexecutives as defendants and alleges the Section 11 claim thatsurvived the judge's August 29, 2003 order.

On November 21, 2003, Calpine and the individual defendantsmoved to dismiss the third amended complaint on the grounds thatplaintiff's Section 11 claim was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. On February 4, 2004, the judgedenied the Company's motion to dismiss but has asked the partiesto be prepared to file summary judgment motions to address thestatute of limitations issue. The Company filed its answer tothe third amended complaint on February 23, 2004.

In a separate order dated February 4, 2004, the Court deniedwithout prejudice Mr. Ser's motion to be appointed leadplaintiff. Mr. Ser subsequently stated he no longer desired toserve as lead plaintiff. On April 4, 2004, the Policemen andFiremen Retirement System of the City of Detroit ("P&F") movedto be appointed lead plaintiff, which motion was granted on May14, 2004.

In July 2004 the Court issued an order for pretrial preparationestablishing a trial date on November 7, 2005. On August 31,2004, Calpine filed a motion for summary judgment, which wasdenied on November 3, 2004. Discovery is under way.

The suit, styled "Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund, et al. v.Calpine Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-01321," is pendingin the United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia, under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. The plaintifffirms in this litigation are:

CALPINE CORPORATION: Production of Documents Proceed in CA Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Limited production of documents is proceeding in the classaction filed against Calpine Corporation, its directors andcertain investment banks in the state superior Court of SantaClara County, California, styled "Hawaii Structural IronworkersPension Fund v. Calpine, et al."

The suit's underlying allegations are substantially the same asthe federal securities class actions described above. However,the Hawaii action is brought on behalf of a purported class ofpurchasers of Calpine's equity securities sold to publicinvestors in its April 2002 equity offering.

The Hawaii action alleges that the Registration Statement andProspectus filed by Calpine, which became effective on April 24,2002, contained false and misleading statements regardingCalpine's financial condition in violation of Sections 11, 12and 15 of the Securities Act. The Hawaii action relies in parton Calpine's restatement of certain past financial results,announced on March 3, 2003, to support its allegations. TheHawaii action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, inaddition to other forms of relief.

The Company removed the Hawaii action to Federal Court in April2003 and filed a motion to transfer the case for consolidationwith the other securities class action lawsuits in the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of California inMay 2003. Plaintiff sought to have the action remanded to stateCourt, and on August 27, 2003, the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of California granted plaintiff'smotion to remand the action to state Court. In early October2003 plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claims it has against threeof the outside directors.

On November 5, 2003, Calpine, the individual defendants and theunderwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss this complainton numerous grounds. On February 6, 2004, the Court issued atentative ruling sustaining the Company's motion to dismiss onthe issue of plaintiff's standing. The Court found thatplaintiff had not shown that it had purchased Calpine stock"traceable" to the April 2002 equity offering. The Courtoverruled the Company's motion to dismiss on all other grounds.On March 12, 2004, after oral argument on the issues, the Courtconfirmed its February 2, 2004 ruling.

On February 20, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, andin late March 2004, the Company and the individual defendantsfiled answers to this complaint. On April 9, 2004, the Companyand the individual defendants filed motions to transfer thelawsuit to Santa Clara County Superior Court, which motions weregranted on May 7, 2004. Limited document production has takenplace. Negotiations have been taking place between counsel andfurther production of documents will occur once the Court entersa protective order governing the use of confidential informationin this action.

CALPINE CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Calpine Corporation asked the United States District Court forthe Northern District of California to dismiss the class actionfiled against it and the Calpine Corporation Retirement SavingsPlan (the 401(k) plan), styled "Phelps v. Calpine Corporation,et al."

The Phelps action is brought on behalf of a purported class ofparticipants in the 401(k) Plan. The Phelps action alleges thatvarious filings and statements made by the Company during theclass period were materially false and misleading, and thatdefendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations asfiduciaries of the 401(k) Plan by allowing the 401(k) Plan toinvest in Calpine common stock. The Phelps action seeks anunspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms ofrelief.

In May 2003 Lennette Poor-Herena, another participant in the401(k) Plan, filed a substantially similar class action lawsuitas the Phelps action also in the Northern District ofCalifornia. Plaintiffs' counsel is the same in both of theseactions, and they have agreed to consolidate these two cases.

On January 20, 2004, plaintiff James Phelps filed a consolidatedERISA complaint naming Calpine and numerous individual currentand former Calpine Board members and employees as defendants.Pursuant to a stipulated agreement with plaintiff, Calpine filedits response, in the form of a motion to dismiss.

The two suits are pending in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of California, under Judge SaundraBrown Armstrong, styled:

CALPINE ENERGY: Seeking Dismissal of Business Fraud Suits in CA---------------------------------------------------------------Calpine Energy Services, Inc. is working for the dismissal ofthe class actions filed against it and other energy traders andenergy companies, alleging violations of the California Business& Professions Code Section 17200.

The lead case is T&E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Tradingand Marketing, L.L.C., et al. This purported class actioncomplaint filed in May 2002 alleges that defendants exercisedmarket power and manipulated prices in violation of CaliforniaBusiness & Professions Code. The suit seeks injunctive relief,restitution, and attorneys' fees. The Company also has beennamed in eight other similar complaints for violations ofSection 17200. All eight cases were removed from the variousstate Courts in which they were originally filed to the UnitedStates District Court in California for pretrial proceedingswith other cases in which the Company is not named as adefendant. The Company considers the allegations to be withoutmerit, and filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2003. TheCourt granted the motion, and plaintiffs have appealed.

Prior to the motion to dismiss being granted, one of theactions, captioned Millar v. Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLP,et al., was remanded to state superior Court of Alameda County,California. On January 12, 2004, the Company was added as adefendant in Millar. This action includes similar allegationsto the other Section 17200 cases, but also seeks rescission ofthe long-term power contracts with the California Department ofWater Resources. Upon motion from another newly addeddefendant, Millar was recently removed to federal Court. It hasnow been transferred to the same judge that is presiding overthe other Section 17200 cases, where it will be consolidatedwith such cases for pretrial purposes. The Company anticipatesfiling a timely motion for dismissal of Millar as well.

The complaints are substantially identical in form and allegeviolations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act inconnection with the receipt of facsimile advertisements thatwere transmitted by MediaTel. Each complaint seeks injunctiverelief and unspecified damages and certification as a classaction on behalf of Travel 100 and others similarly situatedthroughout the United States that received the facsimileadvertisements.

Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act a court can imposeliability of $500 per fax on a party that sends a fax withoutthe consent of the recipient. A court can increase theliability to $1,500 per fax if the sending of the fax iswillful. MediaTel contracted with a third party to providefacsimile advertising services for Mediterranean. The thirdparty, in turn, contracted with Mediterranean. Melrosecontracted directly with MediaTel for transmission of thefacsimiles.

In its answer filed on September 23, 2003, Mediterranean namedthe Company as a third-party defendant and asserted that to theextent that Mediterranean is liable, Captaris should be liableunder theories of indemnification or contribution for anydamages suffered by Mediterranean. Similarly, in its answerfiled on October 14, 2003, Melrose named Captaris, as well asPTEK, as third-party defendants based on allegations of breachof contract and claims for contribution.

In response to Mediterranean's third-party complaint, Captarisfiled its answer on November 3, 2003, denying the allegationsfiled by Mediterranean and further answering by way ofaffirmative defenses that to the extent Captaris is found liablefor any damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs or any third-party plaintiffs in this action, Captaris is entitled toindemnification and/or contribution from other non-parties tothis action. Captaris filed a similar answer to Melrose'scomplaint on November 20, 2003.

On September 8, 2004, Oceania filed an Answer and Third-PartyComplaint against Captaris and MediaTel making similarallegations to those made in the other two cases in its countsfor fraud, indemnification and contribution. Captaris andMediaTel have until November 15, 2004, to respond to Oceania'sThird-Party Complaint.

CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Settles Specialty Health Care Provider Suits--------------------------------------------------------------CIGNA HealthCare reached a settlement in lawsuits brought onbehalf of a nationwide class of specialty health care providersand certain state and national associations. The agreement mustbe approved by the United States District Court in Miami.

The agreement follows CIGNA HealthCare's settlement in September2003 of similar class action suits filed on behalf of some700,000 physicians across the country.

"Our principal imperative as a provider of health and wellnessbenefits is to help health care providers achieve the bestpossible medical outcomes for our members - to help them treatthe whole person," said W. Allen Schaffer, M.D., CIGNA's chiefclinical officer. "This agreement makes it easier for us to workclosely with specialty providers to meet that objective, ensurepatient safety and deliver the high-quality care patients needand expect."

The settlement encompasses and brings to final resolution allspecialty health care provider claims asserted in various casesthat were transferred to U.S. District Court in Miami. Thehealth care providers covered by the settlement includechiropractors, psychologists, counselors, podiatrists,acupuncturists, optometrists, physical and occupationaltherapists, nurse midwives, nurse practitioners, nurseanesthetists, nutritionists, orthotists, prosthetists,audiologists, speech and hearing therapists and others. Whilethe exact size of the class is undetermined, a notice regardingthe settlement will be mailed to at least 210,000 specialtyhealth care providers.

(7) Establish a specialty health care provider advisory committee to maintain open and frequent communication between CIGNA HealthCare and the providers and to address relevant issues and concerns.

"We believe this agreement greatly benefits podiatric physiciansand their patients now and in the future," said APMA PresidentLloyd S. Smith, DPM. "By agreeing to this settlement, CIGNA hastaken steps to improve its relations with providers and thequality of care for its members."

CIGNA Corporation previously recorded charges related both tothis settlement and the physician class action lawsuits settledearlier this year. The settlement though will have no additionalimpact on CIGNA's financial results.

CITIZENS UTILITY: 490T SBC Clients Eligible For $12M Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Approximately 490,000 SBC customers who subscribed to the now-defunct SimpliFive calling plan are eligible for $25 incompensation, a total of about $12 million, under a class actionsettlement being announced to customers in their December phonebills, according to the Citizens Utility Board.

The settlement stems from a complaint CUB brought before theIllinois Commerce Commission (ICC) in 2000, charging theCompany's marketing of the plan was misleading. The ICC agreedand ordered the Company to refrain from selling the plan as amoney-saving option for consumers.

But the commission ruled it had no authority to order refundsfor consumers who had been overcharged on the plan.Subsequently, private attorneys filed a class action lawsuitseeking compensation for SimpliFive customers. CUB monitored thelawsuit and helped negotiate the final settlement.

"We're pleased to see that consumers who were misled intosubscribing to SimpliFive will get some compensation," CUBExecutive Director Martin Cohen said. "And we hope SBC and theother phone companies will think twice before they try tomislead consumers in the future."

Under SimpliFive, which has not been offered since 2002,consumers paid a nickel per call for all calls up to eight milesaway and five cents per minute for all other local calls. In itsICC complaint, CUB argued that only SBC customers who made alarge volume of local toll calls would save money under theplan. The others who subscribed would pay more.

Data collected during the case confirmed this prediction.According to SBC's own figures, 47 percent of all SimpliFivecustomers paid more on the plan than they would have on SBC'sstandard rates.

"Due to the complexity of SBC's rates, most customers had no wayof knowing whether they lost or saved money on the plan," Cohenadded. "But the Company has stated that all customers whobelieve they lost money will be compensated."

In Court, SBC valued the settlement at $12 million based on all490,000 customers filing a claim. According to SBC, claim formswill be mailed out in December phone bills. To obtaincompensation, eligible customers must sign and return the form.

CUB is a nonprofit statewide utility watchdog organizationcreated by the state legislature to represent the interests ofresidential and small-business utility customers. For moreinformation about CUB and its efforts to protect consumers overthe last 20 years, visit http://www.CitizensUtilityBoard.orgor call CUB's Consumer Hotline at 1-800-669-5556.

"It's wrong to use the lure of a free prize to trick people intogiving up their hard-earned money," Cooper said. "These fraudartists took advantage of unsuspecting North Carolina consumers,and we must stop them."

Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning granted AGCooper's request to bar Del Sol, a telemarketing firm based inCovina, California from calling North Carolina consumers. Thelawsuit alleges that Del Sol broke state law by tellingconsumers that they had to make a purchase in order to collect aprize, by misleading customers about the merchandise theypurchased, and by failing to register as a telemarketer in NorthCarolina. In addition to today's preliminary injunction, Cooperis asking the Court to make Del Sol pay refunds to consumers andcivil penalties to the state.

According to the lawsuit, Del Sol called hundreds of Hispanicconsumers in North Carolina to tell them that they had won afree laptop computer. In order to claim their prize, thescammers said, consumers needed to purchase more than $200 worthof designer perfume, music CDs, and other items. Whileconsumers who placed orders did receive merchandise such asknock-off perfume and some CDs, none of them received a computeras promised.

The original consumer complaint filed with Cooper's office aboutDel Sol came from Honorario Martinez, a minister who preaches ata Spanish-speaking church in Lee County. Based on thiscomplaint, Cooper's office investigated and discovered that atleast 419 Hispanic consumers in North Carolina had been bilkedby Del Sol?s phony pitch since May of 2004.

According to Mr. Martinez's complaint, the bilingualtelemarketer who called him said she needed to speak with himurgently. The telemarketer then told him that he had won acomputer but had to purchase two watches, 10 religion-based CDsand 10 bottles of name-brand perfume for a total of $229 beforehe could receive his prize. When the shipment arrived, itincluded some CDs, perfume and watches but did not include acomputer. Instead, Mr. Martinez got a device that could be usedto receive Internet access via television but required thepurchase of additional equipment in order to work.

"People who are new to our state need to know that our lawsprotect them when they do business here," said Cooper. "If youhave questions or if you believe you've been the victim offraud, let my office know about it. We're here to help."

Cooper also encouraged consumers to add their home and cellphone numbers to the Do Not Call Registry to cut down onunwanted telemarketing calls. Consumers can sign up in eitherEnglish or Spanish online at www.nocallsnc.com or by calling(888) 382-1222 toll-free from the number the wish to register.

DUKE ENERGY: FERC Approves $207.5M Western Markets Settlement-------------------------------------------------------------The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved apreviously announced settlement between Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK)and the states of California, Washington and Oregon; FERC staff;California's three largest investor-owned utilities; and otherparties, according to the Company.

The settlement, announced in July, resolves refund proceedingsand other significant litigation related to the western energymarkets during 2000-2001. The private litigation components ofthe settlement agreement are subject to Court approval.

"We have made excellent progress in 2004 addressing and closingout regulatory and legal issues," said Fred Fowler, Duke Energypresident and chief operating officer. "FERC's approval of theWestern Markets Settlement is a major milestone in resolvingthese issues. Duke Energy can now fully focus on its corebusiness of meeting current and future energy needs in thewestern United States and elsewhere."

As part of the settlement, Duke Energy will provide $207.5million in cash and credits. In exchange, the parties willforego all claims relating to refunds or other monetary damagesfor sales of electricity during the settlement period, andclaims alleging Duke Energy received unjust or unreasonablerates for the sale of electricity during the settlement period,January 2000 through June 2001.

Duke Energy recorded a $105 million pre-tax charge in the secondquarter of 2004 to reflect the settlement agreement.

Specifically the settlement resolves:

(1) All western refund proceedings pending before FERC

(2) Market price investigations by attorneys general in California, Washington and Oregon

EDELBROCK CORPORATION: Working To Settle DE Securities Lawsuits---------------------------------------------------------------Edelbrock Corporation is working to settle consolidatedshareholder class action filed against it and its directors inthe Court of Chancery for New Castle County, Delaware on behalfof its shareholders.

On April 13, 2004, an action styled as "Robert Garfield v. O.Victor Edelbrock, et al., No.374-N" was filed, alleging thatterms of the proposal to acquire the shares of the Company notalready owned by the shareholder/plaintiff presented by Mr.Edelbrock are unfair and inadequate and that the defendantsother than Mr. Edelbrock have responded to that proposal in amanner that violates their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffclass. The action seeks to enjoin consummation of thetransaction contemplated by the proposal or, if it has beenconsummated, rescission of the transaction and/or damages.

On April 13 and 15, 2004, respectively, two other purportedclass actions making similar allegations and seekingsubstantially similar relief were filed in the same Court andstyled as "William Steiner v. Edelbrock Corporation, et al.,No.377-N;" and "Roger Delgado v. Edelbrock Corporation, et al.,No.388-N." The three actions have been consolidated into asingle action.

On July 30, 2004, the parties to the consolidated action enteredinto a memorandum of understanding ("MoU") with respect to aproposed settlement of these actions. The parties have beennegotiating the final forms of settlement documents to implementthe terms of the MoU. Plaintiffs' counsel has also revieweddocuments they deemed relevant and taken three depositions toconfirm their understandings with respect to the transaction andrelated factual matters. Under the terms of the proposedsettlement, which is subject to Court approval, the plaintiffs'counsel will be entitled to $425,000 in fees and expenses in theaggregate.

FLORIDA: Tomato, Pepper Farm Laborers To Receive Compensation-------------------------------------------------------------Mexican consulate in Miami, Florida is calling on farm laborerswho worked between 1998 and 2000 on tomato and pepper crops inthe West Palm Beach area to collect the compensation due them,the EFE News Services reports.

According to the consulate, the indemnities, which range from$10 to $10,000, is the judgment awarded in a class-action suitbrought by the Florida Legal organization dedicated tocounseling the poor. A total of 17,000 workers were benefited bythe Court decision that pays them wages they lost by beingdeported before receiving their last paycheck and for havingbeen swindled by their employers, the consulate further stated.

"Some workers had deductions from their wages for SocialSecurity, with which they were never registered since they wereundocumented," Mexican consul Jorge Lomonaco told EFE. Thecontractor simply kept the amount deducted from these employees.Other workers "did not receive the total amount of the minimumwage. Many of the laborers did piecework, which means they werepaid for the number of buckets of produce they picked," theconsul added.

Workers are paid a certain amount - which can range from a fewcents to a dollar - for each bucket of fruit or vegetables theyharvest, and their pay is based on how many buckets they fill inan hour or a day. "This means that sometimes they earn more thanthe hourly minimum wage, but those who aren't so fast get lessthan the minimum wage at the end of the day," Mr. Lomonaco said.

The Mexican official further said, "State law (in Florida)specifies a fixed hourly sum and the employer is obliged to paythe minimum amount. He can pay more but he cannot pay less,regardless of how many buckets have been filled."

If someone worked during those dates for any of thesecontractors - Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, Maria Medrano andCandido Mu¤oz - and considers that they are owed any wages, heor she should contact the consul Edgardo Briones and Jesus deLara at the Protection Department of the Mexican consulate.

The Commission's order finds, and Franklin neither admits nordenies, that between 2001 and 2003, FTDI had shelf spaceagreements with 39 broker-dealers pursuant to which FTDIallocated $52 million from brokerage commissions related totrades of fund shares (which were fund assets) to the broker-dealers in exchange for shelf space. Franklin did not adequatelydisclose these agreements to the fund boards or the fundshareholders.

The use of brokerage commissions to compensate brokerage firmsfor marketing created a conflict of interest between FA and thefunds because FA benefited from the increased management feesresulting from increased fund sales, and consequently had anincentive to use these brokerage firms, whether or not thebrokerage firms were best for the fund shareholders. FA wasrequired, but failed, to disclose adequately the arrangements tothe boards so they could approve this use of fund assets, and toshareholders so they could be informed when making investmentdecisions.

FTDI aided and abetted FA's violations. FTDI benefited from thearrangements by avoiding paying for shelf space out of its ownassets. FTDI had the opportunity to disclose these agreements tothe boards but failed to do so.

The $20 million civil penalty will be distributed to theFranklin funds whose assets were used to pay for shelf space.Franklin will also undertake compliance measures designed toprotect against future violations. These measures includeretaining an Independent Distribution Consultant to develop aDistribution Plan to distribute the total penalty ordered andappointing an employee to design and implement policies andprocedures governing Franklin's shelf space arrangements.

The order finds that FA violated Section 206(2) of theInvestment Advisers Act of 1940, and that FA and FTDI violatedSections 34(b) and 17(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940and Rule 17d-1 thereunder, and requires FA and FTDI to cease anddesist from violating these provisions. FA and FTDI consented toentry of the order without admitting or denying the findings.

GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia granted final approval to the settlement of thesecurities class action filed against Gemstar-TV GuideInternational, Inc., styled "In re Gemstar-TV GuideInternational Inc. Securities Litigation, in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California, MasterFile No. 02-CV-2775 MRP (PLAx)."

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (the 1934 Act) and the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933Act). The alleged claims were brought under Sections 10(b) and20(a) of the 1934 Act, Section 11 of the 1933 Act and SEC Rule10b-5 and seek unspecified monetary damages. The suit allegesviolations of the securities laws in connection with theCompany's accounting for certain transactions which weresubsequently restated between November 2002 and March 2003. Theamended complaint seeks money damages on behalf of a purportedclass of holders of the Company's securities during the relevanttime period, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May11,2004) stated.

In September 2004, prior to final approval of the settlement andpursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Companyelected to substitute cash for 2,052,545 shares of Gemstarcommon stock by paying $12.5 million into an escrow account. OnSeptember 15, 2004, the Court entered a final judgment thatapproved the settlement of the claims against the Company,dismissed the action against the Company with prejudice andcertified a class for settlement purposes.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Companyrelinquished control over the cash portion of the settlementamount held in escrow. Following the final Court approval ofthe settlement, the Company issued 328,407 shares from treasurystock and made a payment of an additional $0.3 million in cashto meet the stock trading price guarantee associated with suchshares to the plaintiffs' counsel for a portion of theattorneys' fees. The remaining 1,724,138 shares of Gemstarcommon stock, plus any additional shares to be issued or cashto be paid to meet the stock trading price guarantee, having anaggregate value of $10.5 million, will be issued at a futuredate in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

As previously reported, the plaintiff class will retain all ofits claims against Dr. Yuen, Ms. Leung, and the Company's formerindependent public accountants, and the settlement does notresolve the related shareholder derivative suits or the non-consolidated securities fraud cases still pending against theCompany.

Filed in June 2002, the suit seeks an overhaul of the stateDivision of Family and Children Services in DeKalb and Fultoncounties. It was filed on behalf of nine children and wasexpanded in August 2003 by Judge Shoob to cover about 3,000other foster children as a class action.

In his latest ruling, Judge Shoob also rejected the state'srequest to exclude reports and testimony of experts used by theNew York-based advocacy group Children's Rights, which filed thesuit. According to the judge, whether the state's practicesdeprive children of their constitutional rights "is an ultimatelegal issue to be decided by the Court based upon all theevidence presented at trial." He further stated "Plaintiffs'experts' opinions regarding the applicable standards governingchild welfare practice and state defendants' current level ofperformance as measured against those standards will clearlyassist the Court in making that determination."

The state of Georgia had argued that there was no single set ofnational standards on how child welfare systems should perform,and therefore the experts could not testify about whetherGeorgia departed from national professional standards.

The lawsuit claims that Georgia's current system fails to workwith families well enough to reunite children safely withparents and fails to move children to adoption within areasonable length of time. The plaintiffs' lawyers hope that aCourt victory would lead Judge Shoob to demand vast improvementsin the foster care system, with continued Court supervision.

However, the State continues to argue that it has taken steps toimprove foster care and that Court-ordered reforms could makethe reforms more costly.

INKINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Settlement For PA Stock Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Inkine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reached a settlement for the classaction filed against it in the Court of Common Pleas,Philadelphia County, on behalf of a putative class of holders ofInKine equity shares who have purportedly been denied certainclaimed preemptive rights during the last six years.

On March 15, 2004, the Company withdrew a public offering of sixmillion shares of its common stock. The decision to withdrawthe offering was made when it came to the Company's attentionthat its certificate of incorporation did not contain anyprovision exempting the Company from providing preemptive rightsin connection with certain securities offerings.

On October 12, 2004, the Company entered into an agreement withan undisclosed third party who will fund the settlement ofdamages and costs incurred in connection with the class actionlawsuit. The Company has also entered into, and filed with theCourt of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, a settlementagreement with the class of InKine shareholders. At this time,there can be no assurance that those conditions will be met andthat the settlement will receive final Court approval.

KENNETH COLE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court----------------------------------------------------------------Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. faces a class action filed in theSuperior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles,alleging that the individual plaintiffs and other purportedclass members worked hours for which they were entitled toreceive, but did not receive, overtime compensation underCalifornia law.

The Company has retained counsel, is preparing a formal responseto the complaint, and plans to defend the action vigorously, theCompany stated in a disclosure to the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

The complaint alleges that KVH and its officers, among otherthings, issued materially false and misleading statementsregarding the Company's financial results and the strong demandfor one of the Company's new products. The complaint furtheralleges that the Company failed to disclose to shareholdersmaterial facts about the financial condition of the Company inorder to complete a $51.5 million public offering of KVH commonstock. The lawsuit covers the class period of Oct 1, 2003-July2, 2004.

"We believe actions by top officers at KVH Industries haveharmed shareholders, including thousands of Teamster families,"said C. Thomas Keegel, Teamster General Secretary-Treasurer, whoalso serves as Trustee for the Teamsters Affiliates PensionPlan. "We will always fight to protect the retirement securityof our members and their families."

MCLEODUSA INC.: IA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District ofIowa refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class actionfiled against McLeodUSA, Inc.'s officers, namely:

NEW JERSEY: Resident Arrested For Importing Illegal Flu Vaccines----------------------------------------------------------------Michael J. Garcia, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security forU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Office ofCriminal Investigations for the Food and Drug Administration(FDA); and detectives from the Atlantic County Prosecutor'sOffice announced the arrest of Mahmoud Abuarqoub, 37, of SomersPoint, N.J. Abuarqoub was arrested as he entered the country atthe Philadelphia International Airport Saturday for the illegalimportation of 810 doses of unapproved flu vaccine into theUnited States.

"This arrest puts an end to Mahmoud Abuarquob's alleged effortsto profit from America's flu vaccine shortage," said Mr. Garcia."This plot to import unapproved vaccine for sale at grosslyinflated prices threatened to put America's flu vaccine suppliesat risk. Protecting this country from illegal and potentiallydangerous imports is a priority for ICE and the Department ofHomeland Security."

A criminal complaint against Abuarqoub filed today in U.S.District Court in Camden alleges that Abuarqoub imported theAventis Vaxigrip flu vaccine from Saudi Arabia Nov. 17.Abuarqoub, a naturalized United States citizen born in Jordan,had approached a medical professional working at Somers PointMemorial Hospital attempting to sell flu vaccines imported fromEurope.

Abuarqoub indicated that he was representing "SAFAD Corporation"and initially offered to sell 20,000 units of Aventis Vaxigripflu vaccine at $65 per unit ($1.3 million total). Abuarqoubdisplayed copies of a Vaxigrip container and a printout fromAventis to the hospital. The hospital contacted law enforcementinstead. With the hospital cooperating with law enforcement,Abuarqoub agreed that he would sell the hospital 1600 doses ofthe flu vaccine at a cost of $55 per unit.

On November 17, ICE agents seized the package containing thevaccine after it arrived at JFK Airport, N.Y. The package wasaddressed to Abuarqoub at his residence. ICE and FDA agentsdelivered the package to the address in Somers Point, thenexecuted a search warrant of the residence seizing records andother material related to the investigation. Abuarqoub was outof the country at the time of the search warrant execution,allegedly arranging for purchase and delivery of additional fluvaccine doses. Abuarqoub faces up to five years in prison andup to $10,000 in fines if convicted. Abuarqoub is presumedinnocent until proven guilty in a Court of law.

Anybody with knowledge of similar attempts to import anddistribute unapproved vaccines should contact ICE at1-866-DHS-2ICE (866-347-2423), or call the FDA at 301-827-6242.

NYFIX INC.: Asks CT Court To Dismiss Securities Violations Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Nyfix, Inc. asked the United States Distirct Court for theDistrict of Connecticut to dismiss an amended securities classaction filed against it. The suit, initially styled "JOHNSON ETAL. V. NYFIX, INC., ET AL.," also names as defendants theCompany's Chairman and CEO, its former CFO, its current CFO andcertain of its directors.

The complaint was initially filed as a purported class actionclaim on behalf of all buyers of the Company's stock betweenMarch 30, 2000 and March 30, 2004 and seeks an unspecifiedamount of damages. The complaint alleged violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934("Exchange Act"), based on the issuance of a series of allegedlyfalse and misleading financial statements and press releasesconcerning, among other things, the Company's investment inNYFIX Millennium.

On July 20, 2004, the Court appointed three different plaintiffsto be the lead plaintiffs, as Fuller & Thaler Asset Managementwithdrew as the named plaintiff. The action became styledJOHNSON, ET AL. V. NYFIX, INC., ET AL. The newly namedplaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint, whichadded, among other things, allegations of violations of Sections11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The newallegations are based fundamentally on the same allegations asthe plaintiffs asserted in the original complaint.

According to the Washington, D.C.-based American Tort ReformAssociation, the bill's passage is the culmination of amultiyear effort by state legislators and the Ohio Alliance forCivil Justice to enact comprehensive reform that will promote amore hospitable legal environment,

"This should signal to other states also having difficultiesthat it can be accomplished," said Gretchen Schaefer, aspokeswoman for ATRA.

The main provisions of the Ohio bull include:

(1) A $500,000 cap on "pain and suffering," or noncatastrophic awards;

Ohio Gov. Robert Taft, a long-time advocate of tort reform whowas expected to sign the bill, said in a statement that the billis sure to improve the state's business climate and create jobs.

"A comprehensive lawsuit reform plays a central role in oursuccess," Taft said. "A fair and effective civil justice systemis an essential part of promoting and sustaining an attractivebusiness climate in Ohio."

Sean McManamy, assistant vice president of the Midwestern regionfor the American Insurance Association, said Ohio is among thefirst states to tackle an issue that has begun to strangle thelegal process in some parts of the nation -- such as inMissouri, where doctors are leaving the state in droves, and inMadison County, Ill., which has become the butt of jokes for theexorbitant number of class-action lawsuits that flow though itslegal system.

"When a state implements broad tort reform legislation like Ohiodid, what it's doing is making insurance costs more stable andmore predictable, and that is going to benefit the insuranceconsumer," McManamy said.

In the realm of medical malpractice, Ohio became among the firstin the nation to create a fund to address the growing issue,authorizing establishment of the Medical Liability UnderwritingAssociation. The law allows for the transfer of $12 million fromthe Ohio Joint Underwriting Association, a medical-malpracticeinsurance Company created by statute in 1975 that was beingterminated (BestWire April 16, 2004).

In September, Ohio moved the truly sick to the head of theasbestos-lawsuit line with passage of lawsuit reform thatrequires asbestos cases filed by individuals showing symptoms ofillness from exposure to asbestos to be the first cases heard(BestWire, Sept. 24, 2004).

Other states taking the lead when it comes to legal reforminclude Texas and Mississippi.

Gov. Haley Barbour signed Mississippi's much-hailed tort-reformbill into law on June 16. Among other provisions, the new lawplaces a $500,000 cap on awards for noneconomic damages inmedical-malpractice lawsuits.

According to ATRA, the Texas Legislature modeled its law afterone enacted in California nearly three decades ago that hashelped keep that state's doctors where their patients need them.The law limits the award of noneconomic damages in medical-malpractice cases to $250,000 against all doctors and health-care practitioners and $250,000 per facility against health-carefacilities such as hospitals and nursing homes, with an overalllimit of $550,000 against health-care facilities.

PENNSYLVANIA: Lawyers Predict Lengthy Process For VIOXX Lawsuits----------------------------------------------------------------Lawyers predict that Vioxx lawsuits will probably be handledthrough mass tort, which is different from class action thusmaking for a very lengthy legal process, the Patriot-Newsreports.

Class-action lawsuits typically involve a large group of peoplewho claim harm by a common cause, such as being overcharged by abank, but the value of the damage to each person isn't enough tojustify a lawsuit. On the other hand, mass torts involve a largegroup claiming harm by a common cause, such as a defectiveproduct, where the alleged damage to each person varies and mustbe determined individually.

The Vioxx lawsuits probably would be consolidated in one federalCourt were discovery should be held on such matters as whatMerck knew about the drug's harmful effects and what kind ofproblems occurred among users. The plaintiffs' lawyers will thenform a network to share information.

Eventually, several test cases would go to trial and based ontheir outcomes, Merck and victims' lawyers would gauge thestrength of their positions. If Merck fares well in the earlycases, it might opt to fight all the claims, but if not Merckmight be inclined to settle cases.

When that happens, plaintiffs' lawyers would forward details ofindividual cases to Merck and negotiate settlements. Payoutswould vary according to personal circumstances. For example, anelderly person previously disabled would likely receive lessthan a young person disabled by a heart attack because of Vioxx.Several Harrisburg lawyers though predict that it will be atleast two years before people who file lawsuits receive moneywith attorneys typically receiving 33 percent of awards, plusexpenses.

PETMED EXPRESS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in FL----------------------------------------------------------------PetMed Express, Inc. and certain of its officers and directorsface six shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of Florida foralleged violations of the federal securities laws.

Five of the class action shareholder complaints containsubstantive allegations identical to the complaint filed onAugust 17, 2004. These complaints allege violations of theanti-fraud provision contained in Section 10(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, thereunder andassert violations of Section 20(a) of that act against theindividual defendants as controlling persons.

The actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of theCompany's common stock between June 18, 2003 and July 26, 2004,and the complaints generally allege that the defendants madefalse or misleading statements concerning the Company'sbusiness, prospects, and operations and failed to disclose,among other things:

(1) that the Company's business allegedly depends on veterinarians, who are the Company's competitors, to authorize prescriptions,

(2) that the Company's business model, which, in part, requires veterinarians to authorize prescriptions, caused veterinarians to incur certain costs and burdens, which were supposedly shifted from the Company to the veterinarians,

(3) the existence of a supposed increase in veterinarian refusals to comply with Company requests for prescription authorization,

(4) the Company's alleged inability to guarantee the quality of, and maintain control over, pet medications and the negative impact this was having on veterinarian willingness to authorize prescriptions, and

(5) that the foregoing allegations were adversely impacting the Company.

The complaints also allege that the individual defendants weremotivated to engage in the alleged violations so that they couldaffect sales of their shares of the Company's common stock atartificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs seek unspecifiedmonetary damages.

The sixth class action shareholder complaint also allegesviolations of the anti-fraud provision contained in Section10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5thereunder, and asserts violations of Section 20(a) of that actagainst the Company and the individual defendants as controllingpersons.

The action has purportedly been brought on behalf of purchasersof the Company's common stock between June 16, 2003 and July 26,2004 and generally alleges that the defendants made false ormisleading statements concerning the Company's business,prospects and operations and failed to disclose, among otherthings, that the Company supposedly diverted costs toveterinarians which would ultimately cost the Company decreasedsales in future periods, and that the defendants allegedlyrisked the quality, safety, or efficacy of the Company's drugs,resulting in veterinarians declining to refill prescriptionsthrough the Company, which would ultimately cost the Companydecreased revenue.

The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants weremotivated to engage in the alleged violations to obtainfinancing for the Company and so that they could effect sales oftheir shares of the Company's common stock at artificiallyinflated prices. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetarydamages.

PRICE LEGACY: Asks Court To Stay Suit V. PL Retail Acquisition--------------------------------------------------------------Price Legacy Corporation asked the Superior Court of California,County of San Diego to stay the class action filed against itand each of its current members and one past member of its boardof directors.

The operative complaint alleges the defendants breached theirfiduciary duty to their stockholders in connection with theproposed merger pursuant to which the Company will be acquiredby PL Retail LLC. The complaint challenges the sufficiency ofthe merger consideration, the adequacy of disclosures and theindependence of the directors, and seeks a preliminary andpermanent injunction of the merger transaction and unspecifieddamages from the defendants. The discovery process has beenongoing.

On October 27, 2004, the defendants filed a demurrer to theplaintiff's complaint contending that the complaint fails tostate a valid cause of action against any of the defendants andis fatally uncertain. The demurrer is set for hearing onJanuary 14, 2005. On October 27, 2004, the defendants alsofiled a motion to stay the action. The motion to stay is setfor hearing on January 21, 2005.

The amended suit alleges that the defendants breached theirfiduciary duty to the Company's stockholders in connection withthe proposed merger pursuant to which the Company will beacquired by PL Retail LLC. The amended complaint challenges thesufficiency of the merger consideration, the adequacy ofdisclosures and the independence of the directors, and seeks apreliminary and permanent injunction of the merger transaction,the imposition of a constructive trust, and unspecified damagesfrom the defendants.

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: NY Attorney General Spitzer Issues Subpoena---------------------------------------------------------------Though no charges have been filed, New York Attorney GeneralEliot Spitzer recently issued a fourth subpoena to St. PaulTravelers Companies Inc., and officials at the insurance firmstated that his office is investigating whether they improperlydropped liability coverage for attorneys, the Associated Pressreports.

At least five other insurance companies have received similarsubpoenas in lieu of Mr. Spitzer expansion oh his investigationof the industry on accusations of bid rigging and kickbacksamong insurers and brokers that first surfaced in late October.

The other firms that were subpoenaed are CNA Financial Corp.,General Electric Company's Employers Reinsurance Corp., HartfordFinancial Services Group, American Financial Group Inc. and ArchCapital Group Inc.

Insurance analysts believe that the attorney general isresponding to complaints from attorneys that large insurers havelimited malpractice coverage and raised premiums in an effort tolimit the number of class-action lawsuits against their clients.

According to Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the industry-sponsored Insurance Information Institute in New York, "Morelawyers are suing lawyers, it's not as if attorneys have beensingled out. The fact is, attorneys have been caught up in thesame explosion of litigation that has affected otherprofessional service firms."

However, some legal groups suspect that insurance companies areraising rates and dropping coverage to protect themselves.

SUMMIT PROPERTIES: Shareholders Launch NC Suit v. Camden Merger---------------------------------------------------------------Summit Properties, Inc. faces a class action currently pendingin the United States District Court for the Western District ofNorth Carolina, Charlotte Division, over its proposed mergerwith Camden Property Trust.

The suit, filed on October 6, 2004 in the General Court ofJustice, Superior Court Division, of the State of NorthCarolina, County of Mecklenburg by an alleged Summitstockholder, also names as defendants Camden and each member ofSummit's board of directors. The suit principally alleges thatthe merger and the acts of the Summit directors constitute abreach of the Summit defendants' fiduciary duties to Summitstockholders. The plaintiff in the lawsuit seeks, among otherthings:

(1) a declaration that each defendant has committed or aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty to the Summit stockholders,

(2) to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Merger,

(3) to rescind the Merger in the event that it is consummated

(4) an order to permit a stockholders' committee to ensure an unspecified "fair procedure, adequate procedural safe-guards and independent input by plaintiff" in connection with any transaction for Summit shares,

(5) unspecified compensatory damages and

(6) attorneys' fees

On November 3, 2004, Camden removed the lawsuit to the NorthCarolina federal Court, and filed an Answer and Counterclaim fordeclaratory judgment denying the plaintiff's allegations ofwrongdoing.

The suit is styled "Krantz v. Summit Properties In, et al, CaseNo. 04-CV-558," filed in the United States District Court forthe Western District of North Carolina, under Judge H. BrentMcKnight.

TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Presents Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court--------------------------------------------------------------Transmeta Corporation presented formal settlement documents forthe securities class action filed against it, certain of itsdirectors and officers, and certain of the underwriters for itsinitial public offering to the United States District Court forthe Southern District of New York. The suit is styled "In reTransmeta Corporation Initial Public Offering SecuritiesLitigation, Case No. 01 CV 6492."

The complaints allege that the prospectus issued in connectionwith the Company's initial public offering on November 7, 2000failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwritersfor that offering, and alleges claims against the Company andseveral of its officers and directors under Sections 11 and 15of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.

Similar actions have been filed against more than 300 othercompanies that issued stock in connection with other initialpublic offerings during 1999-2000. Those cases have beencoordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial PublicOffering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

In July 2002, the Company joined in a coordinated motion todismiss filed on behalf of multiple issuers and otherdefendants. In February 2003, the Court granted in part anddenied in part the coordinated motion to dismiss, and issued anorder regarding the pleading of amended complaints. Plaintiffssubsequently proposed a settlement offer to all issuerdefendants, which settlement would provide for payments byissuers' insurance carriers if plaintiffs fail to recover acertain amount from underwriter defendants.

Although the Company and the individual defendants believe thatthe complaints are without merit and deny any liability, butbecause they also wish to avoid the continuing waste ofmanagement time and expense of litigation, they acceptedplaintiffs' proposal to settle all claims that might have beenbrought in this action. The Company and the individualTransmeta defendants expect that their share of the globalsettlement will be fully funded by their director and officerliability insurance. Although the Company and the Transmetadefendants have approved the settlement in principle, it remainssubject to several procedural conditions, as well as formalapproval by the Court. It is possible that the parties may notreach a final written settlement agreement or that the Court maydecline to approve the settlement in whole or part.

The Attorney General's lawsuit alleges Trinity SouthernUniversity of Dallas and owners Craig B. and Alton S. Poe areoperating a "diploma mill" in which they market, promote andchurn out bachelor's, master's and doctorate "degrees" viaadvertisements on the university's Web site. These "degrees" arebeing issued solely on the basis of a "student's" testimonyabout skills and experience.

"This unaccredited university offers `degrees' for sale andcharges from $300 to $500 for what amounts to worthless paper,"said Attorney General Abbott. "Texans who want an educationdeserve to receive proper credentials, and I'll make everyeffort under the law to see that this wrongful practice stopsfor good."

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has also beenaware of this alleged fraud against the public and referred itsinformation to the Attorney General for legal action. Theuniversity's Web site claims that a prospective student has "noclasses to attend, no tests to take." Despite having noclassroom time to endure, the university assures students that,once "qualified" based on their experience, they will receive abachelor's degree comprised of 115-120 credit hours. Thosepursuing master's and Ph.D. degrees will be mailed transcriptsreflecting 36-48 hours of course credit. The university eventries to assure students its degree program is not a scam. TheWeb site's "question and answer" page says the universityaccepts credit cards and a "no questions asked" 30-dayguarantee.

The suit, which also seeks temporary and permanent injunctions,penalties and restitution for students, is filed under the TexasDeceptive Trade Practices Act. In addition to having itsaccounts frozen, the university was ordered to stop acceptingpayments from students and promoting unlawful services. Atemporary injunction hearing has been scheduled for December 27.

Another similar suit is proceeding in coordination with theconsolidated case in which the plaintiffs allege, among otherthings, that the Company breached its fiduciary duties as acontrolling stockholder of Ribapharm in connection with itstender offer for the shares of Ribapharm it did not already own.

On August 4, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs reached anagreement in principle to settle these lawsuits for a nominalamount and, after settlement papers are prepared, will presentthat settlement to the Court of Chancery for its approval.

In June 2003, a purported class action on behalf of certainstockholders of Ribapharm was filed against the Company in theDelaware Court of Chancery seeking a declaration that theshareholders rights plan is valid and enforceable. The Companyand the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settlethis lawsuit which will be completed in combination withthe settlement "In re Ribapharm Inc. Shareholders Litigation,Consol. C.A. No. 20337."

In June 2003, a purported class action was filed in the SuperiorCourt of Orange County, California, against the Company,Ribapharm and certain of Ribapharm's officers and directorsasserting the same claims, on behalf of the same class ofplaintiffs and against the same defendants as in the sevenlawsuits filed in Delaware that are described above.

The settlement of the Delaware tender offer litigation has beendesigned to release the claims brought in this lawsuit, althoughthe decision as to the effect of that release will be subject tothe discretion of the California Court. The Delaware Court hasscheduled a hearing for December 2, 2004 to consider thefairness of the settlement of the Delaware actions. If thesettlement is approved, the Delaware cases will be dismissedwith prejudice. The Company and the other defendants in theCalifornia action will then ask the California Court to dismissthe California action based on the release approved by theDelaware Court.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for theCentral District of California's dismissal of the consolidatedsecurities class action filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals,Inc. and certain of its current and former executive officers.

Since July 25, 2002, multiple class actions have been filedagainst the Company and some of its current and former executiveofficers alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleadingfinancial results to the market during different class periodsranging from May 3, 2001 to July 10, 2002, thereby artificiallyinflating the price of the Company's stock.

The lawsuits generally claim that the Company issued false andmisleading statements regarding the Company's earnings prospectsand sales figures (based upon "channel stuffing" allegations),its operations in Russia, the marketing of Efudex, and theearnings and sales of its Photonics division. The plaintiffsgenerally seek to recover compensatory damages, includinginterest.

All the actions have been consolidated to the Central Districtof California. On June 24, 2004, the Court dismissed the SecondAmended Complaint. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appealto the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Dismisses Most of Stock Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The Orange County Superior Court in California dismissed most ofthe claims in a class action filed against ValeantPharmaceuticals, Inc. and some of its current and formerdirectors and former executive officers.

On May 9, 2003, a bondholder filed the suit, alleging that thedefendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of1933 by making false and misleading statements in connectionwith an offering of 6-1/2% Convertible Subordinated Notes due2008 in November 2001, thereby artificially inflating the marketprice of the Notes. The plaintiffs generally seek to recovercompensatory damages, including interest.

On June 24, 2004, the Court granted the motion to strike andpermitted plaintiffs to amend the complaint to comply withcertain notice requirements. The Court also held thatplaintiffs must, but did not, provide particular facts in thecomplaint to show that the defendants violated the securitieslaw. Ultimately, the Court dismissed most of the claims butgranted the plaintiffs until September 4, 2004 to file anamended complaint. The Court denied the defendants' motion todismiss with respect to one claim involving the impairment ofthe Company's Russian assets.

The Company and plaintiffs have agreed to extend the time forplaintiffs to file another complaint pending preliminaryapproval of an agreement in principle among the parties tosettle the matter for approximately $3,200,000. If plaintiffsultimately file another complaint, the Company expects to filean additional motion to dismiss. In that case, the Company alsoexpects further motion practice and limited discovery regardingthe surviving Russian assets impairment claim.

VIOXX LITIGATION: Merck Agrees To Alter Consumer Refund Program---------------------------------------------------------------As a result of Michigan Attorneys General Mike Cox's efforts,drug manufacturer Merck has agreed to significantly alter itsconsumer refund program for unused Vioxx, AG Cox announced in astatement.

On September 30, 2004, drug manufacturer Merck announced theimmediate withdrawal of its blockbuster prescription pain drug,Vioxx, from the United States and global markets. Merckwithdrew Vioxx because of reports that Vioxx substantiallyincreased some Vioxx users' risks of heart attack and strokesand created a consumer refund program. The program was designedto reimburse consumers for any Vioxx they had on hand at thetime of the recall.

Among other things, the program required consumers to return allunused Vioxx to Merck in order to qualify for a refund. WhileCox was pleased that consumers would be reimbursed for unusedVioxx, he felt the refund program contained too many hurdlesbefore reimbursement would occur. Based on action from Cox'soffice in coordination with seven other state Attorneys General,Vioxx has changed its refund program.

"I know how expensive medications can be, and I will doeverything I can to help consumers save money when it comes totheir prescriptions," Cox said. "I'm glad that Merck is workingwith us to create a more user-friendly refund program. Itcertainly is to the benefit of all citizens."

Effective last week, Merck has agreed to do the following forformer Vioxx patients:

(1) Provide consumers who have Vioxx, upon request, with prepaid UPS mailers, which Merck can arrange to pick up at consumers' homes;

(2) Allow consumers who destroyed unused Vioxx to certify in writing that they had unused Vioxx on September 30, 2004, but that they later destroyed the product under doctors' orders or otherwise;

(3) Allow consumers to file claims for a refund by March 31, 2005 (the former deadline was December 31, 2004);

(4) Make a good faith effort to notify consumers about the refund program in future advertisements or print notices about Vioxx;

(5) Through Merck's sales staff, contact rheumatologists and primary care doctors who prescribed Vioxx with information about the modified refund program so the doctors can then distribute to patients that were taking Vioxx;

(6) Work with HMOs and pharmacies to mail out updated refund notices to consumers who purchased Vioxx and who may be eligible for a product refund;

(7) Directly contact any consumers whose refund claims were rejected by Merck because the consumers did not return the product, and tell those consumers they would be eligible to make a refund claim without returning the product.

As previously reported in the June 24, 2004 edition of the ClassAction Reporter, the United States District Court in SanFrancisco, California granted class certification to a lawsuitfiled against retail giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. by six women,alleging sex discrimination. That decision potentially adds asmany as 1.6 million plaintiffs to the legal action, making itthe largest class-action suit against a retailer in history.

According to the Chamber's lawyers, the lower court's orderencourages companies to adopt quota-like policies that arecontrary to the purposes and spirit of Title VII of the CivilRights Act. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents more thanthree million businesses and business organizations.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After twice emerging frombankruptcy, Anchor (a glass bottle maker) sold 7.5 millionshares in an initial public offering ("IPO") on September 25,2003. The Complaint alleges that Anchor's Prospectus for the IPOwas materially false because it failed to disclose Anchor'sexcess inventory and misstated Anchor's ability to overhaul andupgrade it manufacturing plants. Anchor used most of the $127.8million it received from the IPO to buy back insiders' preferredstock. After the IPO, Anchor continued issuing glowing pressreleases about its sales and its contracts to provide glassbottling to beverage makers. Nevertheless, Anchor failed todisclose that it had built up a large excess inventory and wouldtherefore be forced to lower production, and that Anchor'smanufacturing plant in Connellsville, Pennsylvania wasmaterially impaired.

On November 5, 2004, in a complete reversal of its prior publicstance, Anchor reported:

(1) a net loss of $5.9 million for its third quarter, or $(0.24) per share;

(2) that its Connellsville facility had permanently ceased operation; and

(3) that production would be "curtailed" to help lower inventory levels in the fourth quarter of 2004.

Anchor announced it would take a 4th quarter restructuringcharge of $45 to $55 million for asset impairment and employeeseverance costs tied to the Connellsville exit. Anchor alsoannounced that CEO Richard Deneau had retired and that the boardhad suspended quarterly common-stock dividend payments. Anchor'sstock dropped from $7.94 to $5.80, or 27%, on unusually heavytrading volume.

ENT & IMLER: Sommer Barnard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IN--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Sommer Barnard Attorneys, P.C. initiated asecurities fraud class action captioned Central Community Churchof God et al. v. Ent & Imler CPA Group, PC, Cause No. 1:03-cv-0667-DFS-VSS in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Indiana on behalf of all persons("Noteholders") who purchased between April 30, 1998 and April30, 2002 (the "Class Period") Investment Notes offered by ChurchExtension of the Church of God, Inc. ("CEG") through a series ofOffering Circulars (dated April 30, 1998; April 30, 1999; May 1,2000; and November 1, 2001) and who suffered losses as a resultof their investment (the "Class").

The complaint charges Ent & Imler CPA Group, PC ("Ent & Imler"),which acted as CEG's independent auditors from December 1997 toSeptember 2002, with violating the federal securities laws bycertifying CEG's consolidated financial statements which weremade a part of certain Offering Circulars, with Ent & Imler'sapproval, and otherwise helping to prepare the OfferingCirculars. The complaint alleges that the Offering Circulars,including the consolidated financial statements, containedfraudulent misrepresentations and omissions that misledNoteholders and concealed CEG's true financial condition,including misrepresenting that the proceeds from the sale ofInvestment Notes would be used primarily to fund church loansand that CEG maintained a reserve of liquid assets equal to apercentage of CEG's outstanding note obligations, and omittinginformation that CEG was engaging in a series of high-risk"bargain sale" transactions using inflated appraisals and othermeans to exaggerate the value of the properties or businessesacquired by CEG.

GEOPHARMA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NY------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit inthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwiseacquired publicly traded securities of GeoPharma, Inc.("GeoPharma" or the "Company") (NASDAQSC:GORX) between December1, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filedagainst GeoPharma and Kotha Sekharam ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges thatDefendants issued false and misleading statements with respectto its product Mucotrol. In particular, on December 1, 2004,GeoPharma announced that Mucotrol had been approved by the Food& Drug Administration ("FDA"). In reaction to this news, sharesof GeoPharma skyrocketed to $11.25 per share. Soon thereafter,journalists uncovered that the FDA had not approved any suchdrug. It was then acknowledged by the Company that Mucotrol wasa "device" and not a drug, which is a material difference. Inaddition, Mucotrol did not contain any medical ingredients. Onthis news shares of GeoPharma declined, trading at $6.81 atwhich point trading was halted.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.

JAKKS PACIFIC: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC initiated a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of thecommon stock of the JAKKS Pacific, Inc. (NASDAQ:JAKK) ("JAKKS"or the "Company") from February 16, 2000 through October 19,2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges JAKKS and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Companyfailed to disclose and misrepresented the following materialadverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded bythem:

(1) that JAKKS had obtained its lucrative WWE licenses through an illegal bribery scheme;

(2) that JAKKS' success was predicated upon unsustainable business tactics;

(3) that discovery of these unsustainable business tactics would have material impact on the Company's business model; especially, the revenue that JAKKS received from the WWE licenses;

(4) that the Company's revenues and earnings would have been significantly less had the Company not engaged in the bribery scheme; and

(4) that as a result of JAKKS' unsustainable business tactics and bribery scheme, the terms of the WWE licenses could be materially modified, or revoked in its entirety, and the Company would be exposed to significant liability in the form of damages sought by WWE.

On October 19, 2004, JAKKS issued a press release announcingthat it was "engaged in discussions with WWE concerning therestructuring of its toy license and with WWE and THQ withrespect to the restructuring of the JAKKS THQ Joint Venturevideo games license agreement with WWE." On news of this, sharesof JAKKS fell from $24.15 per share to $18.81 per share despitethe fact that JAKKS reported "record" results for the thirdquarter and increased its earnings guidance for the fiscal year.Then, later that day, the WWE Action was filed. The filing ofthe WWE Action was made public after the market closed onOctober 19, 2004. The next trading day, October 20, 2004, inresponse to the news that the problems with the WWE were muchmore pronounced and serious than the impression conveyed byJAKKS' third quarter financial release, the price of JAKKScommon stock declined precipitously falling from $18.81 pershare to $12.96 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Phone:1-800-391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com.

SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class actionin the United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwiseacquired publicly traded securities of Supportsoft, Inc.("Supportsoft" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SPRT) between January20, 2004 and October 1, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period").The lawsuit was filed against Supportsoft, Radha R. Basu, theChairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian M. Beattie, theChief Financial Officer ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5by issuing a series of false and misleading positive statementsto the investing public which touted the Company and itscontinuing financial performance, but failed to disclosematerial business problems.

While the defendants were making these positive statements,defendants Basu and Beattie were selling their own Supportsoftshares for proceeds of millions of dollars.

Having previously predicted revenues of $16.7 to $17.7 millionfor the Third Quarter of 2004, on October 4, 2004, the Companywas forced to admit that actual revenues would be far belowthose figures, in the range of $11.9 million to $12.3. On thisnews, the Company's share price dropped from $9.62 per share to$6.21 per share, representing a drop of 35.4% on extremely heavytrading volume. Accordingly, millions of dollars of shareholdervalue has been lost as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged.The Company's share price has not recovered.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. by Phone:888-884-4490 or by E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York against defendant Vimpel-Communications, Alexander V. Izosimov and Elena A. Shmatova. Theaction charges that defendants violated federal securities lawsby issuing a series of materially false and misleadingstatements to the market throughout the Class Period, whichstatements had the effect of artificially inflating the marketprice of the Company's securities. No class has yet beencertified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,P.A. by Phone: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East PrattStreet, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.

VIMPEL-COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges NY Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seekingclass action status in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York on behalf of all persons whopurchased the publicly traded securities of Vimpel-Communications (NYSE: VIP) ("VimpelCom") between March 25, 2004and December 8, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that VimpelCom violated United Statessecurities laws by issuing false or misleading publicstatements. Specifically, the complaint alleges that VimpelCommisrepresented or failed to disclose the fact that it had notpaid taxes due for certain of its Russian operations. OnDecember 8, 2004, VimpelCom announced that it had receivednotice from Russian tax authorities that it owed approximately$158 million for back taxes. On this news, VimpelCom fell from$38.48 per share on December 7, 2004 to close at $30.10 pershare on December 8, 2004.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton by Phone:(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Website: http://www.snlaw.net.

VYMPEL COMMUNICATIONS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated "Yates v.Vympel Communicatii," Civil Action No. 04-CV-9742, a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of thesecurities of Vympel Communications ("Vympel" or the "Company")(NYSE:VIP) between March 25, 2004 and December 8, 2004,inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Vympel, Alexander V. Izosimov and Elena A.Shmatova with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.More specifically, the Complaint alleges the Company failed todisclose and misrepresented the following material adversefacts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregardedby them:

(1) that Vympel was passing fifty percent (50%) of its revenues from its Moscow operations to its wholly owned subsidiary KB Impuls, thereby improperly deducting fifty percent (50%) of Moscow revenues as expenses to Vympel;

(2) as such, Vympel was only paying taxes on fifty percent (50%) of the Moscow revenues rather than on all revenues from its Moscow operations, including revenues passed onto KB Impuls;

(3) that this improper deduction caused Vympel to artificially inflate its financial results by at least US$534 million for fiscal years 2001-2003;

(4) that as a result of this, the Company's financial results were in violation of generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP");

(5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

(6) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On December 8, 2004, Vympel announced that it had received anact with preliminary conclusions of the review of Vympel's 2001tax filing by its tax inspectorate, stating that the Companyowed an additional 2.5 billion rubles which is approximatelyUS$90 million in tax (plus 1.9 billion rubles or approximatelyUS$67 million in fines and penalties). A large portion of thisamount related to the deductibility of expenses incurred byVympel in connection with the agency relationship between Vympeland its wholly owned subsidiary, KB Impuls, which held the GSMlicense for the city of Moscow and the Moscow region. News ofthis shocked the market. Shares of Vympel fell $8.38 per share,or 21.78 percent, to close at $30.10 per share on unusually hightrading volume.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.